Rapid Response: Should state spend money to defend against new sanctuary state laws?

President Trump reportedly calls Attorney General Jeff Sessions "Mr. Magoo" in conversations with other White House officials.
Mr. Magoo is a cartoon character known for being laughably clumsy.
Trump has repeatedly criticized Sessions for not doing more to investigate former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
On Wednesday, Trump called Sessions' conduct at the Justice Department "disgraceful."
"As long as I am the Attorney General, I will continue to discharge my duties with integrity and honor, and this Department will continue to do its work in a fair and impartial manner according to the law and Constitution." Jeff Sessions

Wochit

This week's question:

If the federal Department of Justice decides to sue Oregon over its sanctuary laws, should the state push back and spend money to defend against the new regulations?

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions addresses the California Peace Officers' Association at the ...more

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions addresses the California Peace Officers' Association at the 26th Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day, Wednesday, March 7, 2018, in Sacramento, Calif. Sessions told law enforcement officers at the conference Wednesday that the Justice Department sued California because state laws are preventing federal immigration agents from doing their jobs.

Why is the question of "should the state spend money" being asked? Of course Kate Brown and the yahoos running Oregon are going to spend any amount of taxpayer money to push back against the Federal government. She's quoted in yesterday's article (March 7) saying the Trump administration is dividing the country, yet she can't see she's been dividing Oregon since she stepped foot into office.

— Greg Machado, Salem

So, does anyone else find the irony in this? When Obama was President, all the talk was immigration reform. Now that someone is actually DOING something about it (or trying to), now they don't want it? Just what are our government's true colors, anyway? Are they for our citizens, or some other country's citizens? Let the feds handle the immigration, that is their job.

— Tony Weaver, Woodburn

It's time for the governor to lower her chin and stop poking a stick in the eye of the Federal Government. The generosity of the Oregon Legislature is absolutely dependent on Federal dollars subsidizing programs from health care to transportation. In addition, the Federal Treasury can bank role a lot more lawyers than Oregon's. My advice is: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

— G. Mick McLean, Lincoln City

Yes! Oregon should not be forced to spend our tax money enforcing federal immigration laws. Oregon's culture and our economy are enriched by immigrants, who are only trying to help their families succeed. It is ironic for former state's rights proponent Sessions to be suing states.

— Paul Krissel, Salem

Oregon is part of the USA. It is Oregon's duty to enforce any and all laws -- whether they be state or federal. If you do not like a law then change it the right way; but do not violate it and expect to "to get away with it."

— Kent Wilson, Salem

No. The answer isn't Sanctuary Cities or a Wall. Part of the answer is a revision to Unrestricted/Unconditional Jus soli and a more effective system for identifying and removing criminals -- and keeping them out once removed. The U.S. needs a true immigration policy that both citizens and immigrants, can feel secure with, in that it is consistently applied.

— Kimberlee McDermott, Silverton

I am absolutely against the State spending any money to fight this legislation. If the State does this, then I am all for the Federal government cutting all funds to the State of Oregon. If the state is against complying with Federal law, then let them stand alone financially.

— Larry R. George, Salem

Oregon should comply with federal law and cooperate fully in the enforcement of federal law. We have a system of government which allows those who do not like current law to change our laws to something better. If Oregon can pick and choose which federal laws to obey, why I can’t I?

— Richard Pine, Salem

They say when you’re in a deep hole, quit digging. We started with a spoon in the 60’s. Got a shiny new shovel in the 80’s. Now the feds are offering us a ladder. Take it! Don’t go out and buy a power shovel.

— Robert Royer, Salem

What part of illegal alien do those in power not understand? No way should the state spend taxpayer dollars to fight the Federal government regarding this issue. The majority of citizens have made it clear that illegal aliens should not be given sanctuary or driver's license or taxpayer dollars to live in Oregon.

— Dr. Karen Franke, Turner

I believe that the state government is acting in the best interest of the people of Oregon. I do not agree with the current administration's policy on immigration.

— Matthew W Laughlin, Salem

No, do not spend state money defending an illegal position. If the governor and other sanctuary minions want to defend their position against the US, let them do it with their money. President Lincoln already determined that long ago that we are a law abiding nation. Oregon should follow U.S. law, if Kate does not like Oregon as a state, she should leave, and make us happy.

— William K. Dettwyler, Salem

No. Immigration is a federal issue that needs to be handled by congress. The most winning on the sanctuary question will get is more expensive sanctuary. The people affected will still be living here as undocumented foreign nationals. What then?

— Wally Gutzler, Woodburn

Yes, Oregon should do what is right, rather than what is cheap. A question of morality should be defended from bullying. Those who disagree but who are typically defenders of "States' Rights" should maintain consistency in their ideology, and work to change the state's stance rather than accept a federal decree.

— Erin Cramer, Stayton

Let them waste taxpayer dollars. Oregon has always tried to do the right thing when it comes to people and our environment. The Republicans always scream state's rights, then leave Oregon alone to do what's right for our citizens and people who need our help.

— Kris Adams, Keizer

Since we shouldn't have sanctuary cities in the first place accommodating those who are here illegally, this is a moot point. The DOJ has every right to sue, and should. Oregon really needs to rethink its position on this issue. And no, we do not want any of our money spent on this nonissue. The legislature already wastes all the money we give them. We don't need this, too.

— Cheryl Eby, Salem

How about a novel idea we follow the federal immigration law which in the Constitution is under the purvey of the federal government.

Another great idea is we (Oregon) could have our own army and handle our own defense?

— Roger Vasend, Salem

She shares the surname of that idiot Governor of California, and is acting more like him every day, like on this sanctuary stuff and taxes. She should stop the grandstanding, and save the state’s money for the real business of government – and it’s not feuding with the Feds. Californication used to be a bad word, but nowadays she and her merry band of clueless Dems have totally embraced it.

— Woody Tiernan, Dallas

No, they waste enough money on things that I would never do. And I realize they blow enough of our tax payer money as it is.

— DeWayne Wilson, Hubbard

That the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently deleted "America's promise as a nation of immigrants" from its mission statement does not reflect Oregon values. Immigrants bring unique cultural and social enrichment and make significant economic contributions; many own small businesses. Oregon should vigorously defend against federal attempts to destroy its sanctuary status.

— Sheryl Westfall Dawson, Salem

According to what I have read, federal law preempts state law. Although I agree with the state's stance, it appears that it will lose this battle, unless the state has some unique defense. If not, the cost of defense is not worth it.

— Lew Hundley, Salem

The state should push back. The Oregon law has been on the books since the 80’s. It recognized that Oregon taxpayer money should be used to enforce local law issues, not a Federal issue. Because of Congressional impotence it has not been addressed and is changeable depending on whoever is in the White House. In other words, one decider. Checks and Balances have been punted to the states.

— Anita Blanchard, Salem

We are a nation of laws. If you don't like the laws, then work legislatively to change them. To do otherwise I would have to ask what is it about the word "united" as in United States, don't you understand?

— John Horn, Independence

I think Oregon should defend its "sanctuary law" which prohibits use of state and local resources to enforce federal immigration law if a person's only crime is being in the country illegally. It should not be our policy to harass honest, hardworking people who are caring for their families and harming no one.

— Sherwin Cullison, Salem

There is no precedent for Oregon tax dollars being spent to support something as unreasonable as maintaining a "sanctuary state." Federal laws should be supported until they are repealed or modified.

— Jim Jaqua, Keizer

Yes, join California in this suit if necessary! This is abhorrent what this administration is doing. Make America into a fascist country not a Democracy. We are a land of immigrants.

Drain this swamp. Remove these illegal leaders. Trump did not win the election.

— Ann Watters RPE, BCPP, Salem

Oregon should absolutely defend our 1987 law on sanctuary. It is not an immigration law. It is a law Oregon can use to fend off unconstitutional federal mandates like the one Sessions is trying to impose on California. The federal government cannot force state law enforcement agencies or legislatures to execute a federal regulatory program.

— Kirk Leonard, SALEM

Any complaint should of course be assessed on its merits. It seems if a state has nonconforming state law in an area where the federal government has preeminence that it should be expected that the federal government might consider intervening to preempt the offending state law or policy. A legitimate intervention should probably not be disputed simply to make a point.

Share This Gallery

Want to have your say?

Interested in joining our crew of Rapid Responders? Email Opinions Editor Carol McAlice Currie at ccurrie@statesmanjournal.com with your full legal name, address, telephone number and email address. All applications are vetted for authenticity. Each Thursday afternoon we submit a question to the members of the Rapid Response team. They have until noon Friday to submit a response. All responses are published Saturday afternoon at StatesmanJournal.com; some are printed in the Sunday newspaper